Proposed  Change  of  Map 

for 

Riverside  Drive  Extension 

REPORT  AND  PLANS 


Sub  mi  lied  to 

Hon.  GEORGE  McANENY 

President  of  the 
Borough  of  Manhattan 


Jun 


flv  ARNOLD  W.  B RUNNER  and 
FREDERIC  LAW  OLMSTED 


lEx  ICtbrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


http://archive.org/details/proposedchangeofOObrun 


Proposed  Change  of  Map 

for 

Riverside  Drive  Extension 


REPORT  AND  PLANS 


Submitted  to 

Hon.  GEORGE  McANENY 

President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan 


June,  1913 


By  ARNOLD  W.  BRUNNER  and 
FREDERIC  LAW  OI.MSTED 


M.  B.  BRCWN  PRINTING  &  BINDING  CO. 
49  10  57  PARK  PLACE,  NEW  YORK 


2:*9i-i:*-iooo 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE 


By  George  McAxeny 
President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan 

The  need  of  fixing  upon  a  definite  plan  for  the  extension  of  Riverside  Drive 
and  the  adoption  of  such  a  plan  as  a  part  of  the  city  map  has  been  long  apparent. 
That  the  Drive  will,  in  time,  be  extended  at  least  to  the  northernmost  point  of 
Manhattan  is  not  questioned.  It  seems  equally  certain  that  the  City  will  eventually 
find  it  necessary  to  acquire  not  only  the  land  needed  for  the  Drive  proper — in 
addition  to  the  rights  it  now  possesses  in  the  former  I^afayette  Boulevard — but 
the  lands  lying  between  the  line  of  the  Drive  and  the  -bore  front  of  the  river. 
Until  a  proper  map  has  been  adopted,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  fix  the  lines  of 
CTOM  streets  intersecting  the  Drive,  or  to  permit  the  owners  of  private  property 
immediately  contiguous  to  the  Drive  either  to  sell  or  to  develop  it. 

When  I  became  Borough  President,  on  January  1,  1910,  I  found  not  only 
that  a  plan  for  the  extension  of  the  Drive  existed,  but  that  an  appropriation  of 
$5,000,000  of  corporate  stock  had  been  allowed  to  meet  the  expense  of  the  work. 
This  was  to  cover  construction  alone,  and  would  have  involved  a  further  enormous 
outlay  for  the  acquisition  of  land.  The  plan  as  it  then  stood  did  not  seem  to  me 
to  be  either  adequate  or  economical.  Upon  my  motion,  therefore,  the  Board  of 
Kstimate  and  Apportionment  cancelled  the  plan  and  repealed  the  appropriation, 
allowing  a  comparatively  small  sum  to  reimburse  contractors  who  had  been 
engaged  for  the  starting  of  the  work. 

Messrs.  Arnold  W.  Brunner  and  Frederic  I-aw  Olmsted  were  thereupon 
engaged  to  imcstigatc  the  whole  problem,  and  t<>  submit  a  new  map  based  upon 
I  Itmpler  and  less  expensive  plan.    Their  report  is  submitted  herewith. 

The  adoption  of  the  plan  proposed,  or  of  any  of  the  alternative  suggestions, 
does  not  commit  the  t  it\  to  the  expenditure  of  any  moneys  until  its  financial 
condition,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  may  war- 
rant such  an  outlay.  The  actual  physical  work  may  be  postponed  as  long  as  the 
Board  wishes,  and  it  need  not  be  done  all  at  once;  the  expense  may  be  spread,  if 
desirable,  over  a  long  period  of  years.  The  matter  of  immediate  importance  is 
to  confirm  the  map  and  remove  uncertainty  about  the  future  of  private  property 
throughout  the  district  to  be  affected  by  the  Drive  development.  It  will  be  of  incal- 
culable value,  both  to  the  City  and  to  the  property  owners,  if  some  definite  plan 
be  adopted  promptly.  If  any  other  course  is  taken,  the  ultimate  expense  to  the 
City  may  be  multiplied  many  times.  The  report  of  Messrs.  Olmsted  and  Brunner 
is  submitted,  therefore,  with  the  recommendation  that  definite  action  fixing  the 
map  lines  shall  now  be  taken.  There  is  no  recommendation  involving  the  imme- 
diate outlay  of  funds  for  any  purpose. 


REPORT 


New  York.  June,  1913. 

Hon.  George  McAneny, 

President,  Borough  of  Manhattan.  City  Hall,  N.  V.  City: 

Sir — In  accordance  with  your  instructions  we  have  been  engaged  for 
some  months  on  I  study  of  plans  for  the  extension  of  Riverside  Drive  to  the 
Borough  of  the  Bronx  and  beg  to  submit  herewith  a  report  and  plana  embody- 
ing our  recommendations. 

The  plan  may  be  divided  for  purposes  of  discussion  into  three  sections: 
The  Southern  section  from  155th  street  to  165th  street,  including  the  crossing 
of  the  158th  street  valley.  The  middle  section  from  165th  street  to  a  point 
about  3,000  feet  South  of  Dyckman  street.  The  Northern  section  from  the 
last  mentioned  point  Northward  across  the  Dyckman  Valley  and  along  Inwood 
Hill  to  the  Borough  of  the  Bronx. 

SOUTHERN  SECTION. 

Throughout  the  Southern  section  there  is  now  a  practicable  roadway  largely 
used  by  automobiles  and  occupying  a  location  nowhere  less  than  100  feet  wide. 
Prom  155th  street,  at  the  Northern  cud  of  the  viaduct  over  the  railroad  along 
Trinity  Cemetery  to  158th  street  this  location  was  laid  out  as  Riverside  Drive; 
from  158th  street  North  it  was  laid  out  as  Boulevard  Lafayette;  in  both  cases, 
unlike  Riverside  Drive  further  South,  it  was  laid  out  as  an  ordinary  street 
through  private  property  with  building  frontage  on  the  Westerly  side  cutting 
it  off  from  the  River,  and  also  unlike  the  rest  of  Riverside  Drive  it  was  laid 
out  on  such  a  crooked  line  as  to  l>e  excessively  inconvenient  and  somewhat 
dangerous.  It  has  long  been  recognized  that  some  radical  improvement  must 
be  secured,  and  many  plans  have  been  prepared  both  for  the  City  and  for 
interested  private  individuals  and  associations.  All  of  these  plans  have  con- 
templated the  shifting  of  the  roadway  far  enough  to  the  Westward  to  cross 
over  158th  street  by  a  bridge  and  to  smooth  out  some  or  all  of  the  abrupt  turns 
in  the  alignment  of  the  main  driveway  without  changing  the  location  of  the 
present  Easterly  building  line  of  Riverside  Drive. 

The  plans  have  been  of  two  classes:  first,  the  more  radical  propositions, 
which  have  contemplated  an  extension  of  the  viaduct  now  existing  South  of 
155th  street  in  a  direct  line  across  the  valley  of  158th  street  entirely  independ- 
ent of  the  present  location ;  second,  those  which  have  proposed  widening  the 
high  fill  on  which  the  present  roadway  is  built  so  as  to  moderate  to  some 
extent  the  abruptness  of  the  two  bends  between  Trinity  Cemetery  and  156th 
street,  and  constructing  a  new  causeway  or  embankment  from  a  point  near 
the  third  bend,  between  156th  street  and  157th  street,  across  the  valley  to 
Boulevard  Lafayette,  leaving  an  archway  for  158th  street  to  pass  through. 


7 


Typical  of  this  less  radical  class  of  plans  is  one  offered  by  the  Washington 
Heights  Taxpayers'  Association,  dated  1906,  and  one  prepared  by  George 
C.  Wheeler,  dated  March  16,  1910.  Also  of  this  class  is  an  alternative  plan 
submitted  with  this  report  and  marked  "  Exhibit  B." 

The  cost  of  a  long,  high  viaduct  is  the  chief  objection  to  any  plan  of  the 
first  class,  since  it  obviously  provides  a  very  much  better  alignment  than  is 
possible  on  a  more  Easterly  route.  In  considering  the  latter,  therefore,  we 
have  sought  for  the  most  economical  plan  that  would  be  reasonably  satis- 
factory and  have  made  careful  preliminary  estimates  of  cost,  for  comparison 
with  the  estimated  cost  of  the  viaduct  plan.  Obviously,  the  further  East 
the  line  of  the  proposed  embankment  can  be  crowded,  that  is  to  say,  the  less 
it  departs  from  the  present  location,  the  less  will  be  the  cost  of  construction, 
but  there  are  two  factors  that  limit  the  extent  to  which  it  can  be  crowded 
Eastward.  The  first  is  the  necessity  of  securing  headroom  under  the  new 
drive  for  158th  street,  and  the  second  is  the  importance  of  securing  really 
satisfactory  curves  and  grades  for  the  drive. 

The  plan  offered  by  the  Taxpayers'  Association  above  referred  to  places 
the  new  drive  so  far  to  the  Eastward  as  barely  to  afford  head-room  over 
the  existing  surface  of  158th  street,  thus  preventing  any  improvement  in 
the  excessive  gradient  of  that  street  (ten  per  cent.)  ;  and  even  Mr.  Wheeler's 
plan  would  interfere  with  improving  that  grade  as  much  as  would  be  de- 
sirable. Representatives  of  the  Taxpayers'  Association  in  hearings  before 
us  have  maintained  that  158th  street  will  always  remain  unimportant  as  a 
traffic  street;  but  we  are  satisfied  that  this  view  is  mistaken  and  that  the 
Dock  Department  is  right  in  contending  for  an  approach  to  the  water  front 
at  this  point  on  a  moderate  gradient  for  the  movement  of  building  materials 
and  other  heavy  local  freight.  There  is  no  other  street  that  can  be  made  to 
give  access  to  the  water  front  on  a  reasonable  grade  for  a  distance  of  a  mile 
and  an  eighth  to  the  South  or  two  miles  and  a  half  to  the  North.  In  our 
opinion,  therefore,  it  is  important  to  keep  any  new  high  level  drive  further 
to  the  Westward  than  in  either  of  the  plans  referred  to,  in  order  to  preserve 
the  opportunity  for  an  approach  to  the  river  on  a  gradient  not  exceeding 
five  per  cent. 

As  to  the  curvature  of  the  drive,  we  believe  it  would  be  extravagantly 
wasteful  to  spend  several  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  improving  the  present 
alignment  and  grade  and  still  leave  the  drive  open  to  serious  criticism  in 
these  respects.  Since  the  present  drive,  between  155th  street  and  157th  street, 
is  carried  on  a  retaining  wall  that  varies  from  55  to  27  feet  in  height,  the 
slightest  shifting  of  the  line  to  the  Westward  will  involve  a  very  large  cost 
either  for  a  new  retaining  wall  or  for  a  huge  sloping  embankment  to  be  cov- 
ered with  soil  and  converted  into  a  park.  The  increased  cost  of  construction 
incident  to  throwing  the  new  line  somewhat  further  West  than  is  shown  on 
the  plans  submitted  to  us  is  relatively  small  in  comparison  with  the  gain  in  the 
quality  of  the  alignment.  We  believe  that  no  sharper  curve  should  be  ap- 
proved than  the  worst  which  is  to  be  found  elsewhere  on  the  drive  between 
this  point  and  72d  street.    A  better  curve  than  this  would  be  desirable.  A 

8 


worse  one  would  not  be  sufficient  improvement  to  justify  the  great  cost  in- 
volved in  any  change.  Adopting  this  standard  of  worst  permissible  curvature 
for  the  new  line  we  arrived  at  the  plan  marked  "  Exhibit  B,"  which  would, 
in  our  opinion,  involve  the  lowest  construction  cost  compatible  with  reason- 
ably satisfactory  results. 

For  comparison  with  this  we  submit,  in  cur  general  plan,  marked  "Ex- 
hibit A."  what  we  believe  to  be  the  best  plan  regardless  of  cost.  This  involves 
a  viaduct  construction  for  1200  feet  Northerly  from  155th  street  and  beyond 
that  point  a  new  drive  entirely  West  of  the  present  Boulevard  Lafayette  and 
considerably  below  it  to  a  junction  point  near  165th  street.  The  plan  also 
provides  for  improving  the  bad  curves  and  grades  in  Boulevard  Lafayette 
between  160th  street  and  164th  street,  which  ought  to  be  ameliorated  in  any 
case. 

It  would  be  possible,  by  deflecting  the  line  of  the  proposed  viaduct  a 
little  more  to  the  Eastward,  to  connect  with  the  present  existing  Boulevard 
Lafayette  just  North  of  160th  street,  but  this  would  require  an  objectionable 
gradient  on  the  viaduct  and  would  be  distinctly  inferior  to  the  plan  as  drawn 
both  in  alignment  and  in  grade. 

For  the  purpose  of  comparing  plans  A  and  B  South  of  165th  street,  we 
have  prepared  preliminary  estimates  of  the  cost  of  construction  under  both, 
based  on  unit  prices  determined  in  consultation  with  Mr.  E.  P.  Goodrich, 
Consulting  Engineer  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan.  These  estimates  do  not 
purport  to  be  exact  as  to  total  cost  but  they  furnish  a  fair  basis  for  judging 
the  relative  costs  of  the  two  plans.  The  estimated  cost  of  construction  for 
the  viaduct  plan  ("  Exhibit  A  "),  including  the  necessary  changes  in  Boule- 
vard Lafayette  as  shown,  but  exclusive  of  any  planting  or  other  improve- 
ment of  the  park  slopes  adjacent  thereto,  is  $1,013,000.  The  estimated  cost 
of  construction  for  the  alternative  plan  ("  Exhibit  B  ")  done  in  the  most 
economical  manner  with  sloping  earth  banks  in  place  of  retaining  walls  but 
including  the  im  <  --ai  y  improvements  in  Boulevard  Lafayette  between  161st 
ttrcct  and  \(>3A  street  corresponding  with  those  included  in  the  estimate  for 
**  Exhibit  A,"  is  $485,000. 

The  land  damages  are,  however,  of  as  much  importance  as  the  construc- 
tion cost.  At  hearings  before  us  some  have  advocated  the  acquirement  for 
park  purposes  of  all  the  land  in  the  158th  street  valley,  from  the  railroad  to 
Boulevard  Lafayette  and  to  the  present  drive  North  of  155th  street.  Taking 
the  South  line  of  161st  street  as  the  Northern  limit  of  this  valley,  the  assessed 
valuation  of  the  property  amounts  to  $241,500;  but  we  are  assured  that  the 
damages  for  its  acquisition  would  be  very  greatly  in  excess  of  that  figure. 
The  chief  argument  for  such  a  large  and  costly  park  acquirement  is  that  the 
valley  has  a  great  deal  of  natural  beauty,  including  a  grove  of  unusually  large 
trees  associated  with  the  memory  of  Audubon.  If  it  were  to  be  acquired  and 
the  viaduct  plan  for  the  drive  were  then  carried  out  ("  Exhibit  A  "),  the  via- 
duct would  to  a  certain  extent  impair  the  value  of  the  property  for  park 
purposes  by  interfering  with  the  open  views  toward  the  river.  It  is  true  that 
the  structure  would  be  so  high  and  open  that  the  park  would  still  be  enjoy- 

9 


able,  as  in  many  a  wooded  valley  spanned  by  a  great  viaduct;  but,  upon  the 
whole,  we  do  not  believe  that  the  area  East  of  the  viaduct  would  be  worth 
enough  as  a  local  park  to  justify  its  cost  to  the  City.  But  there  would  be 
even  less  justification  for  its  acquirement  if  the  alternative  plan  ("Exhibit 
B  ")  were  to  be  carried  out.  In  that  case  the  trees  which  now  make  the 
valley  attractive  would  be  buried  under  a  mountain  of  filling;  the  area  on  the 
Easterly  side  of  the  drive  would  be  a  deep  shut-in  pocket  which  could  be  made 
available  for  park  purposes  only  by  filling  at  large  additional  expense;  and 
the  space  between  the  diive  and  the  railroad  would  be  almost  wholly  occupied 
by  a  newly-filled  sloping  bank,  so  steep  as  to  be  of  very  little  value  as  a  local 
park.  If  the  City  could  afford  to  pay  largely  in  excess  of  a  million  dollars 
to  acquire  this  whole  valley  for  park  purposes,  it  would  be  folly  to  convert 
it  into  a  dump  for  the  sake  of  saving  half  a  million  dollars  in  construction 
cost  by  omitting  the  viaduct. 

If,  when  the  drive  was  originally  laid  out,  all  the  land  between  it  and 
the  railroad  had  been  acquired  for  park  purposes,  as  was  done  South  of 
Trinity  Cemetery,  we  should  recommend  its  retention  as  a  pleasant  wooded 
valley  park,  and  we  should  recommend  a  viaduct  spanning  it  rather  than  a  fill 
obliterating  it ;  but  we  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  its  acquirement 
for  park  purposes,  at  present  values,  would  be  worth,  either  to  the  City  at 
large  or  to  the  assessable  abutters  further  East  or  to  both  combined,  as  much 
as  it  would  certainly  cost. 

There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  outlook  over  the  river  from  the 
improved  line  of  drive  should  be  unobstructed  by  private  buildings  to  the 
West  of  it.  The  assessed  valuations  of  the  properties  between  the  East 
line  of  the  alternative  plan  ("Exhibit  B  ")  and  the  railroad  from  155th  street 
to  the  South  line  of  161st  street  amount  to  about  $566,500;  whereas  the  assessed 
valuations  of  the  properties  included  between  the  East  line  of  the  viaduct  plan 
("  Exhibit  A  ")  and  the  railroad,  within  the  same  limits,  amount  to  only  about 
$243,950.  The  difference  between  these  figures,  $322,550  in  favor  of  the 
viaduct  plan,  would  be  very  largely  increased  by  condemnation.  This  dif- 
ference would  be  further  modified  by  the  amount  of  grade  damages  due  in 
each  case  on  account  of  the  abutting  land  to  the  East.  In  case  of  the  embank- 
ment plan  ("Exhibit  B"),  in  addition  to  the  damages  for  putting  the  abutting 
land  very  much  below  the  street  level,  it  would  be  necessary  either  to  acquire 
rights  to  slope  or  to  build  a  retaining  wall  on  the  street  line.  The  latter  would 
probably  be  less  expensive  and  is  the  usual  practice  of  the  City  in  such  cases. 
Its  estimated  cost  is  $64,310.  The  grade  damages  which  would  result  from 
the  viaduct  would,  at  first  sight,  appear  to  be  greater  than  those  from  the  alter- 
native plan,  because  it  would  be  higher  above  the  natural  surface.  We  have, 
however,  consulted  with  a  representative  of  the  owners  of  a  large  part  of 
the  land  involved,  and  while  he  has  made  no  definite  proposition,  he  has  stated 
explicitly  their  intention  and  desire  to  utilize  the  property  below  the  level  of 
Riverside  Drive  for  warehouse  purposes  (with  access  on  lower  levels  from 
158th  street  and  the  railroad),  and  on  top  of  these  warehouses  to  erect  apart- 
ment houses  with  access  from  the  Drive.    If  the  property  is  to  be  so  developed. 


10 


the  viaduct,  in  spite  of  its  height  above  the  existing  surface,  would  be  a  decided 
benefit,  provided  the  space  beneath  it  were  left  available  for  connection  with 
the  railroad  and  for  other  warehouse  purposes.  Without  a  careful  detailed 
appraisal  by  real  estate  experts  of  the  probable  damages  to  property  in  each 
case,  it  is  impossible  to  set  down  in  definite  figures  the  comparative  cost  of 
the  two  schemes,  but  we  believe  that  the  probable  saving  in  cost  of  construc- 
tion, if  the  alternative  plan  "  B  "  were  adopted  would  be  offset  and  probably 
exceeded  by  the  greater  property  damages  incidental  to  that  plan.  In  view 
of  all  the  facts  accessible  to  us,  it  appears  that  there  will  be  little  difference 
in  total  cost  between  the  two  plans;  that  the  viaduct  plan  would  interfere  less 
than  the  alternative  plan  with  the  development  of  taxable  improvements ;  and 
finally,  that  the  viaduct  plan  would  be  decidedly  superior  as  a  physical  solu- 
tion of  the  problem.  We  therefore  submit  as  our  conclusion  that  the  City 
should  adopt  the  viaduct  plan  substantially  as  shown  on  our  general  plan 
("  Exhibit  A  ")  and  should  proceed  at  the  earliest  practicable  date  to  acquire 
the  necessary  land  and  rights  for  the  execution  of  the  plan. 

While  the  question  above  discussed  at  length  is  the  most  perplexing  and 
controversial  one  involved  in  the  Southern  section,  certain  other  features  of 
this  part  of  the  plan  should  be  mentioned. 

Owing  to  the  extremely  steep  slope  of  the  hillside  at  most  points  North 
of  158th  street,  it  was  almost  inevitable  that  a  street  100  feet  wide  like  Boule- 
vard Lafayette  should  leave  the  abutting  property  on  the  East  excessively 
elevated  above  the  established  street  grade,  and  in  order  to  meet  this  difficulty 
and  give  proper  access  to  the  property  a  one-sided  service  street  has  since 
been  laid  out  at  a  higher  level  and  immediately  contiguous  to  the  Easterly 
line  of  Boulevard  Lafayette.  In  some  places  this  service  street  is  sustained 
oy  a  retaining  wall  on  the  original  East  line  of  the  Boulevard,  but  in  general 
is  supported  on  a  bank  occupying  the  Easterly  part  of  Boulevard  Lafayette, 
only  the  Western  half  of  that  street  having  been  regularly  graded  and  opened 
to  travel.  The  service  street  is  only  40  feet  wide  and  is  provided  with  a 
sidewalk  only  upon  the  Easterly  side  next  the  private  property.  The  plung- 
ing view  from  the  Westerly  side  is  so  fine  that  there  will  always  be  a  strong 
temptation  for  people  to  walk  along  that  side  of  the  street.  We  therefore 
believe  it  to  be  very  desirable  in  the  interests  of  safety,  as  well  as  for  the 
sake  of  securing  a  valuable  local  promenade,  to  provide  a  sidewalk  with 
trees  upon  it  along  the  Westerly  side  of  the  service  street,  and  on  a  level 
with  it.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  occasion  for  a  sidewalk  on  the  East 
side  of  the  main  or  lower  roadway  and  on  a  level  with  it.  The  general  effect 
will  be  much  more  agreeable  if  a  park-like  planted  bank  is  maintained  along 
this  side  of  the  road.  We  recommend  therefore  that  the  space  between  the 
Easterly  curb  of  the  main  roadway  and  Westerly  curb  of  the  service  street 
roadway  be  utilized  as  follows:  first,  for  a  promenade  or  sidewalk  at  the 
level  of  the  service  street,  supported  by  a  retaining  wall  where  necessary  to 
overcome  the  difference  in  grade;  and  second,  for  a  park-like  planted  bank 
rising  from  the  Easterly  curb  of  the  main  road  toward  this  promenade. 

Since  there  will  be  no  abutting  properties  and  no  occasion  for  vehicles 


II 


to  stand  along  the  Easterly  side  of  the  main  road  of  Boulevard  Lafayette 
in  this  section,  and  since  the  majority  of  the  through  travel  will  take  the  drive 
still  further  West  which  forms  the  direct  continuation  of  the  viaduct  and 
the  old  portion  of  Riverside  Drive,  we  believe  that  a  clear  width  between  curbs 
of  40  feet  will  be  sufficient  and  we  have  so  shown  it  on  the  plan.  The  gen- 
eral scheme  would  remain  the  same  if  the  Easterly  curb  were  to  be  thrown 
further  over  to  give  additional  width,  but  a  definite  plan  should  be  adopted 
and  the  final  grading  done  at  the  start  in  order  to  permit  the  establishment  of 
permanent  planting. 

The  roadway  in  direct  extension  of  the  older  Riverside  Drive  is  shown 
60  feet  wide  corresponding  to  the  dimensions  adopted  further  South. 

MIDDLE  SECTION. 

Throughout  the  middle  section,  from  165th  street  Northward  to  the  point 
where  the  design  is  affected  by  the  approach  to  the  viaduct  across  the  Dyck- 
man  street  valley,  the  plan  for  the  roadway  now  proposed  is  only  a  modifica- 
tion in  detail  of  the  plan  under  which  Boulevard  Lafayette  was  laid  out. 
We  accept  the  single  60-foot  roadway  of  that  plan  because  we  believe  it  to 
be  ample  for  handling  the  traffic  and  because  to  make  the  roadway  wider, 
or  to  change  it  into  a  double  roadway,  as  at  some  points  in  the  old  portion 
of  Riverside  Drive,  would  increase  both  the  cost  of  construction  and  the 
damage  to  the  natural  scenery  without  offsetting  advantages. 

So  far  as  concerns  the  traffic  capacity  of  the  roadway,  we  regard  a  width 
of  60  feet  as  extremely  liberal,  since  there  will  be  no  occasion  for  vehicles 
to  stand  at  the  side  of  the  road  to  get  access  to  abuting  property  except  at  a 
few  points  upon  one  side  only. 

The  same  reasons  that  led  us  to  accept  the  60-foot  roadway  width  of 
the  old  plan  led  us  also  to  accept  a  20-foot  sidewalk  or  promenade  continuously 
following  the  Westerly  curb  of  the  roadway  where  it  will  command  the  best 
views.  Only  at  Inspiration  Point,  where  the  topographical  conditions  and  the 
nature  of  the  impressive  views  demand  a  different  treatment,  does  the  main 
walk  separate  either  in  plan  or  in  elevation  from  the  roadway. 

For  the  same  reasons  no  provision  has  been  made  at  the  same  level  as 
the  main  roadway  for  a  walk  along  its  Easterly  side,  away  from  the  view, 
or  for  a  bridle  path.  In  the  park  areas  proposed  for  acquirement  all  along 
the  Western  side  of  the  Drive,  and  in  places  along  the  Eastern  side  it  will 
be  practicable  to  arrange  for  irregular  walks  and  for  bridle  paths,  and  to  do 
so  at  far  less  cost  both  in  money  and  in  destruction  of  natural  scenery  than 
would  be  possible  in  direct  connection  with  the  main  drive. 

Although  adopting  in  general  the  old  Boulevard  Lafayette  plan  as  to  the 
60-foot  roadway  and  the  20-foot  sidewalk  West  of  it,  we  propose  to  improve 
the  details  of  the  alignment  throughout  and  the  grades  at  certain  points. 

Wherever  the  roadway  as  now  graded  is  carried  on  a  higher  retaining 
wall,  as  a  large  proportion  of  it  is,  the  base  of  the  wall  is  supposed  to  have 
been  constructed  on  the  West  line  of  the  old  location  and  the  top  of  the  wall 


12 


is  often  many  feet  to  the  East  of  that  line,  because  of  the  heavy  and  irregular 
batter.  In  such  cases,  in  the  interest  of  economy,  we  have,  wherever  prac- 
ticable without  sacrificing  excellence  of  alignment,  shifted  the  center  line  of 
the  roadway  enough  to  the  Eastward  to  permit  the  construction  of  the  full 
20-foot  walk  West  of  it  without  requiring  the  immediate  reconstruction  of  the 
existing  retaining  walls.  The  heavy  line  shown  upon  the  plan  represents  the  W  est 
side  of  the  20-foot  walk,  and  if  it  is  considered  necessary  to  lay  out  a  new 
street  line  for  the  West  side  of  Riverside  Drive,  separating  it  from  the  park 
lands  on  the  West  and  including  all  construction  necessary  to  the  completion 
of  the  street  improvement,  that  line  should  be  defined  sufficiently  far  to  the 
West  of  the  heavy  line  upon  the  plan  to  include  the  space  required  for  the 
batter  of  the  retaining  walls  both  existing  and  proposed.  Since  that  line 
would  be  an  arbitrary  one,  merely  dividing  two  pieces  of  City  property,  it  is 
not  important  to  make  it  follow  exactly  the  base  of  the  wall,  and  it  can  most 
conveniently  be  drawn  parallel  with  the  walk  line  and  uniformly  about  twenty 
feet  distant  from  it. 

As  in  the  Southern  and  Northern  sections,  we  recommend  as  an  absolute 
essential  the  control  of  the  slopes  lying  to  the  West  of  the  Drive.  The  neces- 
sity of  holding  those  slopes  for  park  purposes  and  for  the  preservation  of 
the  open  view  across  the  river  is  so  obvious  as  to  need  no  argument  or  expla- 
nation. Without  a  permanently  protected  view  to  the  West  the  drive  would 
not  be  Riverside  Drive  at  all ;  it  would  be  merely  one  of  the  longitudinal  ave- 
nues of  Manhattan.  The  river  views  make  it  one  of  the  most  notable  avenues 
of  the  world. 

In  this  section,  however,  we  recommend  also  certain  acquirements  to  the 
East  of  the  Drive.  From  105th  street  to  177th  street  the  ground  rises  very 
abruptly  from  the  roadway  to  a  sort  of  plateau,  very  far  above  it  and  almost 
totally  inaccessible  except  from  the  Eastward  on  the  higher  level.  These  abrupt 
slopes  are  covered  with  some  of  the  largest  and  most  impressive  woods  to 
be  found  along  the  whole  of  Riverside  Drive.  For  the  greater  part  of  the 
distance  the  rocky  wooded  hills  of  Fort  Washington  Park  rise  on  the  West 
above  the  level  of  the  drive,  which  here  runs  through  an  inland  pass  quite 
out  of  sight  of  the  river,  so  that  the  eye  is  not  drawn  to  the  Westward,  as  it  is 
everywhere  else,  but  rests  with  equal  interest  upon  both  sides  of  the  road. 
This  sylvan  passage  affords  a  very  charming  variation  in  the  scenery  of  the 
Drive,  and  its  permanent  retention  would  be  of  great  value.  In  such  a  situa- 
tion to  substitute  a  wall  of  apartment  houses  for  the  woods  on  the  East  side 
of  the  road  would  not  merely  impair  the  scenery  but  totally  change  its  char- 
acter. To  make  this  land  on  the  East  reasonably  available  for  buildings  front- 
ing toward  Riverside  Drive  would  require  the  construction  of  a  separate  serv- 
ice road  carried  on  a  very  high  retaining  wall,  and  the  distance  to  the  next 
existing  street  is  such  that  the  intervening  block  for  more  than  half  its  length 
would  be  either  too  deep  or  too  shallow  for  economical  development. 

The  line  of  proposed  park  acquirement  on  the  general  plan  excludes  all 
the  land  which  seems  reasonably  well  adapted  for  building  purposes  and  not 
essential  for  the  control  of  the  scenery.     In  doing  so  it  leaves  one  row  of  lots 


IS 


backing  on  the  park.  As  a  general  rule  this  is  an  objectionable  practice;  and 
except  for  reasons  of  economy  it  would  probably  be  better  to  acquire  the  row 
of  lots  also;  but  the  case  is  a  peculiar  one  on  account  of  the  extraordinary 
difference  in  level  between  the  street  on  which  these  lots  face  and  the  road 
and  path  from  which  the  scenery  of  the  park  is  mainly  to  be  enjoyed,  but 
we  believe  the  advantage  of  acquiring  these  lots  would  not  be  worth  the  cost. 

The  service  street  for  house  frontage  which  now  borders  the  main  road- 
way on  the  East  from  177th  to  181st  streets  we  propose  to  carry  a  little  farther 
North,  in  connection  with  a  change  in  the  grade  of  181st  street  itself,  in  order 
to  get  a  connection  with  the  drive  at  a  reasonably  good  gradient.  This  fol- 
lows substantially  a  plan  proposed  by  Mr.  Wheeler  on  behalf  of  the  land 
owners.  The  same  remarks  that  were  made  in  regard  to  walk  on  the  West 
side  of  the  service  street  in  the  Southern  section  apply  here  also. 

We  suggest  that  the  location  hitherto  proposed  for  Chittenden  avenue  be 
shifted  half  its  own  width  to  the  West  in  order  to  give  a  better  depth  of  block 
between  this  street  and  Northern  avenue,  and  reduce  land  damages,  and  that 
the  steep  wooded  bank  between  Chittenden  avenue  and  the  present  East  line 
of  Boulevard  Lafayette  be  acquired  for  park  purposes. 

We  show  the  proposed  Chittenden  place  as  heretofore  indicated  by  the 
Topographical  Bureau,  descending  to  the  Drive  from  Northern  avenue,  but 
we  seriously  question  the  wisdom  of  constructing  this  connection  as  a  street, 
or  of  constructing  it  at  all  at  any  time  in  the  near  future.  We  recommend 
that  the  narrow  steep  bank  on  which  it  would  be  laid  out  be  acquired  in  any 
case  for  park  purposes.  If  it  is  so  acquired,  and  if  the  public  convenience 
shall  demand  an  additional  street  between  Northern  avenue  and  Riverside 
Drive  at  this  point,  it  can  at  any  time  be  built  as  a  park  road.  In  the  mean- 
time a  relatively  costly  piece  of  construction  can  be  postponed.  A  more  im- 
portant connection  is  the  one  which  is  shown  descending  along  the  hillside  from 
the  corner  of  Fort  Washington  avenue  and  Corbin  place.  Whether  Chittenden 
place  is  built  or  not  a  flight  of  steps  should  be  constructed  above  to  give  access 
to  what  is  known  locally  as  Inspiration  Point.  The  Drive  here  rises  over  a 
ridge  in  such  a  way  as  to  command  an  exceptionally  impressive  view.  We 
therefore  propose  a  widening  of  the  drive  to  give  good  opportunity  for  vehicles 
to  turn  and  to  stand  without  obstructing  through  travel,  together  with  a  special 
arrangement  of  the  promenade  on  the  West  and  an  elevated  shelter  building 
in  connection  with  the  steps  on  the  East.  One  of  the  sketches  attached  to  this 
report  shows  clearly  the  general  character  of  the  treatment  proposed  for  this 
important  locality. 

NORTHERN  SECTION. 

The  chief  problem  in  the  Northern  Section  has  been  the  determination 
of  the  elevation  of  the  necessary  viaduct  across  the  Dyckman  Street  Valley 
and  of  the  approach  to  the  proposed  Henry  Hudson  Memorial  Bridge  con- 
necting Inwood  Hill  with  the  Bronx. 

Plans  previously  adopted  by  the  City  were  based  upon  an  elevation  of 


16 


217  feet  above  tide  level  for  the  Hudson  Memorial  Bridge,  which  is  almost  as 
high  as  the  highest  summit  of  Inwood  ilill  and  higher  than  any  other  land 
for  a  long  distance  to  the  South  or  to  the  North,  and  they  showed  a  location 
for  the  main  roadway  extending  directly  South  from  the  Bridge  along  the 
central  crest  of  Inwood  Hill,  which  practically  necessitated  a  viaduct  at  a 
great  height,  about  160  feet,  across  the  Dyckman  Street  Valley. 

Aside  from  the  question  of  the  cost  of  the  bridge  and  the  viaduct  this 
plan  was  opposed  before  us  by  representatives  of  numerous  property  owners 
on  the  general  ground  that  by  keeping  the  main  highway  at  such  an  elevation 
it  would  put  nearly  all  the  property  in  the  vicinity  at  a  great  disadvantage, 
and  on  the  specific  ground  that  its  effect  in  detail  upon  the  street  plan  for 
the  whole  adjacent  region  would  result  in  relatively  high  costs  for  construc- 
tion and  relatively  low  values.  Representatives  of  the  interested  property 
owners  discussed  these  questions  with  us  in  detail,  both  at  public  hearings 
and  at  informal  conferences,  and  we  concluded  that  their  objections  were  in 
general  well  founded. 

The  design  of  an  improvement  of  such  great  general  importance  should 
not,  however,  be  controlled  primarily  by  consideration  for  local  real  estate 
interests,  and  we  therefore  made  a  careful  independent  study  of  the  problem 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  City  as  a  whole,  with  particular  regard  for 
aesthetic  considerations.  With  the  greatest  respect  for  the  judgment  of  the 
able  designers  who  had  preceded  us  in  the  consideration  of  the  scheme  we 
found  ourselves  finally  forced  to  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  a  serious  artistic 
mistake  to  make  the  height  of  the  Hudson  Memorial  Bridge  so  great  that  its 
approaches  would  pass  right  over  the  tops  of  the  biggest  lulls  on  each  side 
of  the  valley  which  it  spans.  We  believe  it  will  produce  a  more  dignified 
and  impressive  effect  as  a  whole  if  the  bridge  is  fixed  at  a  level  which  will 
permit  the  masses  of  the  hills  to  count  as  dominant  features  in  the  landscape, 
against  which  the  two  ends  of  the  bridge  may  firmly  abut,  and  which  must 
be  recognized  by  the  deflection  of  the  traffic  lines  around  them.  We  were 
not  commissioned  to  prepare  new  designs  for  the  proposed  bridge  nor  have 
we  undertaken  to  do  so  on  our  own  account,  but  we  have  studied  the  problem 
sufficiently  to  feel  confident  that  a  bridge  can  be  designed  in  accordance  with 
our  conclusions  as  stated  above  so  as  to  produce  a  better  general  effect  at  a 
considerable  saving  in  construction  cost,  while  at  the  same  time  leaving  the 
lands  on  Inwood  Hill  in  better  condition  for  almost  any  kind  of  development. 

Another  serious  objection  on  aesthetic  grounds  to  the  former  plan  of 
locating  of  the  main  drive  along  the  central  crest  of  Inwood  Hill  is  that  it 
would  either  be  cut  off  from  the  river  view  by  buildings  to  the  West  or  would 
involve  the  acquirement  for  park  purposes  of  a  very  large  area  of  valuable 
building  land. 

By  carrying  the  main  drive  around  the  West  side  of  the  Hill  instead  of 
over  the  top  of  it  we  are  enabled  to  reduce  the  elevation  of  the  viaduct  over 
1  )\  ckman  street  to  100  feet  instead  of  160  feet.  On  the  steeper  side-slopes 
elevated  service  streets  for  house  frontage  are  introduced  similar  to  those 
in  the  Southern  and  Middle  Sections. 


17 


The  park  takings  include,  as  elsewhere,  everything  between  the  Drive 
and  the  railroad,  except  in  the  vicinity  of  Dyckman  street  where  it  is  proposed 
to  leave  the  lower  level  for  commercial  development,  subject  to  easements 
preventing  the  erection  of  structures  that  would  interfere  with  the  view  from 
the  viaduct.  It  is  urgently  recommended  that  the  Northern  tip  of  the  ridge 
of  Inwood  Hill,  forming  the  vista  point  of  the  proposed  bridge  and  one  of 
the  most  conspicuous  points  on  the  Island  of  Manhattan,  be  acquired  and  held 
as  a  possible  site  for  some  great  public  building.  The  steep  wooded  slopes 
below  this  point  should  be  acquired  for  park  purposes  at  least  as  far  around 
to  the  East  as  the  plan  indicates  It  would  be  very  desirable  to  connect  these 
park  slopes  with  the  strip  which  extends  down  to  the  water  from  Isham  Park, 
and  to  widen  the  latter  by  an  additional  acquirement  on  the  South  side  so  as 
to  keep  open  the  view  of  the  whole  end  of  Inwood  Hill.  These  propositions 
are  clearly  not  a  part  of  Riverside  Drive  extension  and  accordingly  are  not 
covered  by  our  plans. 

The  precise  elevation  to  be  adopted  for  the  bridge  concourse,  can  only 
be  determined  after  a  careful  re-study  of  the  design  for  the  bridge.  We  are 
satisfied  that  the  elevation  should  not  be  higher  than  that  indicated  on  the 
plan,  181  feet  for  the  bridge  concourse.  If  the  land  takings  are  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  plan  it  will  be  possible  to  construct  the  drive  and  concourse 
at  a  still  lower  elevation  within  those  limits  in  case  that  should  be  found  desir- 
able after  carefully  revising  the  designs  for  the  bridge  and  its  Northern 
approaches. 

On  the  plan  marked  "  Exhibit  C  "  we  show  a  possible  road  and  walk  con- 
necting from  a  point  on  the  main  drive  shortly  North  of  the  Dyckman  Street 
Valley  with  a  possible  road  and  walk  on  top  of  the  new  location  of  the  rail- 
road and  thence  Northward  across  the  Harlem  River  ship  canal  by  a  double 
deck  drawbridge  carrying  both  the  railroad  and  the  roadway. 

The  present  plan  of  the  railroad  contemplates  either  cut  and  cover  or 
tunnel  construction  along  the  whole  of  the  new  right  of  way  from  Dyckman 
street  Northward  almost  to  the  bridge,  and  the  extra  cost  of  a  roadway  and 
walk  along  the  top  of  the  railroad  would  be  comparatively  small.  It  is  ob- 
vious that  the  extra  cost  of  providing  for  the  upper  deck  over  the  railroad 
bridge,  and  for  the  roadway  approaches  to  it  on  the  North,  although  consid- 
erable, would  be  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  cost  of  the  proposed  high  level 
monumental  bridge.  The  great  cost  of  the  latter  will  probably  postpone  the 
completion  of  the  improvement  for  many  years,  and  it  is  seriously  to  be  con- 
sidered whether  the  advantages  of  a  comparatively  early  opening  of  a  con- 
tinuous drive  along  the  river  into  the  Borough  of  the  Bronx  would  not 
justify  such  a  combination  with  the  railroad.  Considered  as  an  absolute 
alternative  involving  the  permanent  abandonment  of  the  high  level  plan,  we 
cannot  recommend  it  as  the  best  solution  of  the  problem,  but  regarded  as  the 
first  step  in  a  plan  providing  for  the  construction  of  the  high  level  bridge  at 
some  time  in  the  remote  future,  and  for  the  acquisition  of  the  necessary 
rights  for  the  same  at  the  present  time,  it  presents  many  advantages.  If  the 
upper  or  driveway  deck  of  the  drawbridge  and  its  approaches  were  provided 

18 


by  the  railroad  under  an  arrangement  by  which  the  City  would  contribute 
to  the  cost  of  the  structure,  it  would  be  possible,  at  a  remarkably  small  cost 
for  construction,  to  open  a  practicable  driveway  along  the  river  to  the  Bronx 
and  to  Yonkers  as  soon  as  the  railroad  completes  the  improvements  now  con- 
templated. The  existing  roadway  of  Boulevard  Lafayette  where  it  bends 
away  from  the  River  South  of  Dyckman  street  will  in  any  case  be  connected 
on  a  good  grade  with  Dyckman  street,  and  by  Dyckman  street  with  a  bridge 
on  which  the  latter  will  cross  over  the  railroad  to  the  water  front.  Thus  it 
would  be  unnecessary  to  await  the  construction  of  the  viaduct  over  Dyck- 
man street  and  the  descending  connection  shown  on  "  Exhibit  C,"  or  in  fact 
any  of  the  other  improvements  in  construction  proposed  anywhere  along  the 
whole  route  of  Riverside  Drive  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  before  opening 
a  practicable  and  useful  thoroughfare  along  the  river  all  the  way  to  Yonkers. 

If  this  suggestion  is  adopted  and  a  driveway  is  provided  as  shown  on 
"  Exhibit  C,"  crossing  the  Dyckman  street  valley  on  a  viaduct  at  elevation  100 
and  thence  descending  to  the  railroad  bridge  it  would  nevertheless  be  desirable 
to  provide  for  a  continuation  of  the  high  level  drive  to  the  Northern  end  of 
Inwood  Hill  on  the  same  lines  as  the  proposed  approach  to  the  Hudson  Memorial 
Bridge,  ending  in  a  terrace  or  concourse,  crowning  the  wooded  slopes  which 
terminate  Manhattan  Island,  and  commanding  wonderful  views  up  and  across 
the  Hudson  and  over  the  low  lying  parts  of  the  City  toward  Long  Island  Sound. 
This  drive  and  terrace  would  be  splendid  in  themselves  and  would  form  the 
starting  point  of  the  great  high  level  bridge  whenever  in  the  future  that  bridge 
may  be  found  practicable. 

GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

In  view  of  the  entire  foregoing  discussion  we  recommend  that  the  City 
proceed  in  the  following  order: 

1.  To  acquire  the  additional  lands  and  rights  in  land  indicated  on  the 
general  plan,  "  Exhibit  A,"  and  discussed  in  detail  in  the  above  report,  preferably 
beginning  at  155th  street  and  working  North.  These  takings  should  include 
all  land  and  rights  in  land  West  of  the  <lri\e  with  the  following  exception-: 
the  railroad  right  of  way;  certain  properties  near  158th  street  and  near  Dyck- 
man street  left  for  commercial  use  but  subject  to  restrictions  against  the  erec- 
tion of  buildings  high  enough  to  obstruct  the  view  from  the  drive;  and  Sttcb 
easements  for  wharves  as  the  City  may  find  necessary. 

2.  To  negotiate  with  the  New  York  Central  Railroad  in  regard  to  the 
design  and  cost  of  a  street  over  the  proposed  new  railroad  location  Northward 
from  Dyckman  street  substantially  as  indicated  on  the  plan  marked  "  Exhibit  C." 

3.  To  prepare  plans,  which  lay  beyond  the  scope  of  our  instructions,  for 
the  continuation  of  Riverside  Drive  and  Park  through  the  Borough  of  the  Bronx 
to  the  Yonkers  line;  and,  at  the  same  time,  preferably  in  co-operation  with 
the  City  of  Yonkers  and  the  State  Highway  Commission  or  some  special  Com- 
mission to  be  created  for  the  purpose  by  the  Legislature,  to  lay  out  a  plan 

19 


for  an  adequate  thoroughfare  on  the  East  side  of  the  Hudson  River  in  con- 
tinuation of  Riverside  Drive  to  the  Northern  part  of  the  State. 

4.  To  construct  the  improvements  shown  on  the  general  plan,  "  Exhibit 
A,"  as  supplemented  by  "  Exhibit  C,"  section  by  section  as  the  finances  of  the 
City  and  local  conditions  at  various  points  along  the  line  may  permit. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

(signed)  Frederick  Law  Olmsted 

Arnold  W.  Brunner. 


20 


CITY   OF    NEW  YORK  -  BOROUGH    OF  MANHATTAN 

PLAN  FOR  THE 

EXTENSION  OF  RIVERSIDE  DRIVE 

FROM  155T-f  STREET  TO  THE  HARLEM  RIVER 

TO  ACCOMPANY  REPORT  DATED  MAY  1913 
SUBMITTED  TO  HON.  GEORGE  MC  ANENY 
BY  ARNOLD  W.  BRUNNER  and  FREDERICK  LAW  OLMSTED 

SCALE  OF  ILL! 
100  0  500  1000  1500  2000 


KXIIIIMT-A 


